Dedicated bike lanes okayed for 4th Street — but only with an engineer’s thumbs up
Posted by editor on July 11, 2012 · 6 Comments
City Council has approved a plan for dedicated bike lanes along Fourth Street East with parking removed from the north side of the street from Townley to the Illecillewaet Bridge, but only once “a qualified transportation engineer” has reviewed and okayed the plan. Until then you won’t see any bike lane symbols on Fourth. David F. Rooney photo
By David F. Rooney
City Council has approved a plan for dedicated bike lanes along Fourth Street East with parking removed from the north side of the street from Townley to the Illecillewaet Bridge, but only once “a qualified transportation engineer” has reviewed and okayed the plan.
Council voted to approve the lanes and the temporary, seasonal removal of parking along the north side of Fourth Street from April until October.
“Implementation of this recommendation will be subject to an engineering review by a qualified transportation engineer,” said a report to
Council from Planning Director John Guenther.
His report noted that some residents will need some time to adjust to the removal of parking as the rear lanes where they might otherwise be expected to park are often inadequate.
Enhancement Committee Chairwoman Toni Johnston said that, overall, three public meetings the committee held in June showed the public is, by and large, very supportive of the bike-lanes concept.
She said 85 per cent of the 70 people who visited an information table set up at Southside Market on June 23 supported trial bike lanes, 24 provided written letters and 21 completed questionnaires. A community group meeting on June 28 yielded broad approval of a trial period for the bike lanes and concerns about the loss of parking when back alley or “rear yard parking is challenging.” A lot of comment was also generated during a presentation about bike lanes held at the Village Idiot on June 2, Johnston said.
There was also concern about the CPR ‘Y’ at fourth and Victoria. Suggestions for that ranged from treating that intersection “as a dismount intersection with pedestrian traffic directed to cross at the south side and walk into the Fourth Street corridor.
But public support for the bike lanes has not been universal.
Starting last week week symbols for the bike lanes were painted on Douglas, Charles and Third Streets, but there have already been several complaints from motorists about cyclists they claim seem to think the symbols mean they have the right of way to ride down the centre of the lanes.
“We have to educate cyclists that they do not own the roads,” said Councillor Gary Starling.
His colleague, Steve Bender, went even further and questioned the wisdom of creating bike lanes in the first place. He said there are plenty of claims about bike lanes’ value to gto everything from tourism to safety but he doubts whether they are true.
“Is it just a warm and fuzzy thing to do?” he asked. “We have had no deaths in the last ten years but we’ve had a thousand close calls. You don’t see dedicated bike lanes in Europe and they’re not complaining. Nobody’s likely to believe this but I’m not anti-cyclist.”
He said he’d like some sober thought applied to the issue.
Councillor Phil Welock said more enforcement of traffic laws will likely force most cyclists to pay attention to what they are doing on the roads. Too many act as though the rules and the common courtesies of the road don’t apply to them. Many still refuse to wear helmets, drive on the wrong side of the road, blow through stop signs and pass cars and trucks on the inside of corners. Cyclists like that are accidents waiting to happen.
The bike lanes are not being established with local taxpayers’ money. This project is financed using Tourism Infrastructure Project money administered by the Revelstoke Accommodation Association.
Though the necessity of bike lanes is questionable enough, I am very disappointed in council’s decision. I feel that the city of Revelstoke did not receive proper notification as to what was going on. I myself found out the day of the June 27th meeting. We expressed our concerns regarding lack of public inquiry, bringing in that the first meeting was held at the Village Idiot – pretty exclusive if you ask me. Our other concern was the lack of professionalism in holding a “meeting” at Southside. How did people know about the Southside meeting? Was it through the organizations e-mail/mailing list? No wonder 85% of people were all for it. I also recall a poll, either on the Revelstoke Current or on the Revelstoke Times Review that actually indicated that over 60% of the readers were against the bike lane – Huh.
Aside from the sheer lack of public inquiry, I was even more disappointed with what we were presented with at the meeting. We were told of the four different types of cyclists and were told of studies that had been conducted regarding bike lanes. However details of these “studies” were never really explained. I will bring up again the “data” that was collected at Southside. Aside from being biased, the presenter did not even have the exact data. I don’t know about you, but a presentation without all the information and data is severely inadequate. The fact that she did not have the information that would sway opposition makes me feel that no one at that meeting expected opposition. Perhaps the group did have all the proper information and data when they presented at council. That only reaffirms my belief that they did not expect any opposition at the June 27th meeting. That, or they simple were not concerned with the public’s opinion.
The people who live on the North side of 4th street already have limited parking. They cannot park in the alleyways behind their homes, at any time of the year. I know that the idea was to give them parking back in October, but I wonder if anyone considered that the residents are not allowed to park on that street during certain times in the winter for snow removal? So essentially, you are getting rid of the only parking that many people have. Doing so, you are devaluing the homes on fourth street, just for a bike lane. People will not want to buy a home without parking, that’s a simple fact.
Arrow Heights hill has bike lanes and from what I have seen, and what others have seen, they are rarely used – many cyclists ride on the sidewalk. So will we put bike lanes in, only to have them not used?
Another issue that was brought up was that Fourth Street is a very busy street and that the bike lane should be put on a less busy street. I believe that council should take time out of their day to observe the things that occur on fourth street. It is hard enough to get people to slow down in the school zones. People pass on the right, speed, blow red lights and all sorts of crazy, hazardous stuff. Surely adding a bike lane will only increase the chances of someone getting hurt. I think an alternate route would been the best answer, since you eliminate the ‘Y’ and the added hazards. Bike lane or not, I still won’t travel on fourth street. I feel that many people will feel the same way.
Perhaps the money should be used to upgrade the Green Belt, which let’s face it is only half done. I have crossed the new pedestrian bridge and had no idea where to go from there. You want a safe way to bike from MacPhearson to Mt. Mackenzie? Upgrade the Green Belt and add signs. Tourists would be more interested in that than riding their bike downtown. Sure our downtown is beautiful, but they come for the scenery and the things they don’t get to see everyday.
I firmly believe that the idea of bike lanes and the elimination of parking was poorly planned and should have included much more public inquiry and data. At the meeting, we gave them our emails and phone numbers and have not heard anything from them. Again, it reaffirms my belief as to biased the whole proposal is.
I believe that the best way to ensure the safety of cyclists is to educate them and drivers. Make drivers more aware that they are there and make sure cyclists know the rules of the road and their responsibilities. It is possible for vehicles and bikes to share the road, Revelstoke has done it for many, many years.
Hopefully council is listening… great points, Jenn!
Our neighborhoods are being changed and not for the better by a small group of decision makers. We had no trouble with cars and cyclists until cyclists started getting agressive and in your face and many not obeying any road rules. The greenbelt is the safest place for cyclists and if you are commuting on your bike then follow some common sense safety rules. I agree Jenn that we have some bad driving going on out there too and that is an enforcement issue. Our roads are not wide enough in Revelstoke to safely accomodate bike lanes and it is only a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt.
To cause the devaluation of a persons property with the stroke of councils pen without proper public consultation and well advertised formal meetings in public is utter stupidity. We are a small town of 7000 people we do not need dedicated bike lanes that cause parking in front of taxpayers homes to be eliminated. I ride my bikes all over town and only see one problem with the roads and traffic, and that is the many potholes and deteriorated state of the cities streets. While the dedicated group who propose the lanes and planners may be well meaning, council must act on behalf of all residents. This must not be a mom and apple pie fuzzy warm feeling decision, but one that is based on sound information, and complete public input. START OVER!
I think the painted sign on our streets is ridiculous. The sign is causing much confusion. I was told the sign means the road is a shared space between cars & bikes. All our streets have been shared space with cars & bikes. This is nothing new, so why do we need signs on our streets?
I agree with Jenn Howe’s “I believe that the best way to ensure the safety of cyclists is to educate them and drivers. Make drivers more aware that they are there and make sure cyclists know the rules of the road and their responsibilities. It is possible for vehicles and bikes to share the road, Revelstoke has done it for many, many years.”
It seems to me that the two meeting over the bike lane were totally cooked.Where were the public notices and why were almost all attendees bike people. I would think this should be totally revisited and that the results should be made public.The town planner seems to think what ever he comes up with is gospel .As far as i am concerned we are wasting goog tax payers money like $ 120,000 plus a year to sit and dream great job.